If adoption were abolished...?

Question

The recent questions about abolishing adoption got me thinking. Many of the answerers stated that they believe abuse, abandonment, neglect, etc. would rise. I've worked with domestic violence victims, rape victims, adoptees, adoptive parents, troubled teens, and you-name-it troubled people for years, and I just don't see this in my work.

First off, the people who seek out adoption plans for their children are doing so because they care about their child and are led to believe they will not be able to provide what a child "deserves", so they must give that child to another person. A mother and/or father who cares so much about their child that they would GIVE HIM/HER AWAY to ensure a "better life" is not the same person who would abuse his/her child, had she chosen to parent.

So...how would abuse, neglect, crime, etc. increase if the people who care so much about their babies were to [for lack of a better term] be forced to raise the babies they care so much about?

Answer 1

Samone...what does any of what you had to say have to with people regretting children? What's your point.

Anyway, I have to agree wholeheartedly with everything that Kecia said. It's refreshing to see a woman who does not hinge her entire life on her child. Most women use children as a clutch and an accessory. You're not alone Kecia. I, too, despise children. It's beautiful that some people don't find beauty in monotony...the ugliest of things.

Answer 2

Lol.  I know that I would have experienced abuse if my mother hadnt given me up.  This is simple fact, my siblings were in fact abused by not only their father, who my mother married 11 months after my birth, but also from our grandparents, our great uncle and several of my mothers boyfriends.  For a LOT of people adoption really was and is the best and safest option.  There is not a single person in my biological family who I would have wanted to raise me.

Answer 3

I think if adoption was abolished, abortion rates would go way up.  And so would the rates of child abandonment.

Answer 4

The reason that abuse/neglect/crime/etc. would rise if adoption were abolished is because some parents, whose children are put up for adoption, would have abused/neglected their children.  

Not all children are put up for adoption simply because the parents love them so much.  Some of the parents are drug addicts or in a similarly untenable situation; they are conscious that their home would be terrible, but may not be in a position to change that.  Kudos to those parents for recognizing their situation, and doing something to help the child out.  

Obviously, this isn't true of all parents that decide to put their children up for adoption--many of them would have actually made wonderful parents.

Answer 5

For those that said they would give up a child because they would probably come to regret having that child around let me share something with you.

7 years ago I was married to a very abusive man, I had my daughter who was 2, and I had just had my son who was 4 months old.

On April 28, 2001, after a very heated argument with my husband he lit fire to my 2 yr olds bed, while me 4 month old slept in it. I'm not exactly sure what all happened after that, I woke up 2 weeks later in icu after I jumped from the window of our apartment building with my son. I sustained serious burns to my legs, my son a burn to his face.

My daughter wasn't home at the time fortunitly.

My now ex hubby received 50 months in prison for arson with disregard for human life. Every day of the trial I was sitting in that courtroom praying for a life sentence.

Today, my daughter is 8, my son is 6, and he is a spitting image of his father, who he will never meet. I've never looked back. I've never held it against either of the kids. I love them to death. Not for one second did I ever regret having or keeping either one of them. If anything, when the times were really tough, they were what kept me together to keep going.

Answer 6

Bob not everyone here is our enemy. Please keep that in mind.

...Maybe read a little more carefully...your talking to people not government officials.

These people will listen if you give them the chance.

Answer 7

I do in fact believe that if adoption were abolished more children would be abused...  The main area this would increase is clearly with those children in foster care... Many of which do not have 'relatives' willing to parent them....

But, beyond this there are clearly situations leading to some birth mother's decisions that include abuse. If there were not the option to place a baby--then many mothers would be in the situation of allowing abusive parents and or spouses/mates to help them parent....  

Family members stepping in to Help is not always an option either--and some families are so fragile that a baby can tip the scales...

If there were NOT the possibility for a mother to place her baby--with someone out side of an abusive situation then to me this would take even more power away from **SOME**. Even if it is one baby placed in order to save the baby from an abusive life then--it is one baby saved....

Going back to the foster children--I just can't imagine how the over 118,000 children currently waiting for adoption would be better off with no hope at all...  In these kids' cases there are no relatives willing to offer guardianship...and having non-relatives provide long term foster care IS NOT the way to end the abuse children in foster care suffer....

The children in care suffer abuse most often by the hands of families interested in the "income" to take the possibility of adoption and "growing up families" away from these kids just reeks of abuse targets to me...

I had a friend I knew during the 80's. She was married and had a baby--her husband abused her.... One day she decided to escape her husband and asked her sister to care for her baby while she got away....

I met my friend on the other side of her escape--some 800 miles from where she left. It took her about 4 months to get up on her feet--and ask her sister for her daughter back....

Her sister had filed abandonment papers and was moving to prove my friend an unfit mother... Alone and recovering from escaping abuse my friend didn't have the means to fight and over a pretty short period of time Her sister had gained full custody of her daughter....

13 years later it was learned that my friends sister who took her daughter had a husband who had spent many years molesting... He said in open court when the charges included "incest" that it really wasn't because he was "married into" the family and not the little girls father--or uncle....

When the little girl was 15 she hanged herself....

I would much rather see mothers have control over who steps in to care for their child...

I also believe that in most cases that a mother who believed there was support within her own family would reach out for that support--I think there are too many mother's who would rather place with strangers then the people they know--especially if they have been abused by the people they know....

****Sarah  Perhaps the term "most" is not the best one here and you are right the above statment may apply for some but clearly not all. My ex-husband was placed by married college students who wanted to finish school--that was 46 years ago and his birth parents are still married--happy and raised a younger sibling....  Clearly he would not have been abused--just a stumbling block to education...

When Abuse and Adoption are combined I tend to knee-jerk and feel for my daughter whom would have been so less hurt had she been placed or taken into foster care much sooner.....

*** Just one Note ***

I did not say that his birth parents Felt that way--THEY DID... those words came about 2 years ago when my ex found his birth parents--married and happy...

He was told by them that He was a "Stumbling Block to their Education" they are both college professors--these were their words not mine...

Answer 8

So...every parent in the world that has ever given a child up for adoption has done so soley in the best interest of the child, and none out of their own impartiality of the child? By that rationale, any impoverished parental unit that doesn't give their child up for adoption is [for lack of a better word] "bad". If all of the people who give their children up for adoption were insusceptible of abusing their children, then I suppose that the only people capable of being bad parents are the ones who choose to take responsibility for their children. You should contact the international institute of sociology, because you have a new one for the textbooks.

Forgive my sarcastic undertone, but you seem to have a view of reality that is...well...unrealistic.

ALOT of people have debated this issue armed with statistics, logistics, and data accurately reflective of society. Frankly, basing an argument that deals with issues effecting the entire free world based on your (I stress YOUR) experience with these societal victims is ill-advised.

Personally, I don't like children. If ever I screwed up and ended up having one I would give it up for adoption. Not because of the best interest of the child, but because I'd probably hate it. Yeah, the child would probably end up having a more priveleged life, but that doesn't negate the fact that I'd have given the child up for reasons that pertained to my personal life. If adoption was then abolished, the child would most likely end up being neglected. Hey, sounds HORRIBLE but that's life. You can call me unethical, but honestly I couldn't care less.

Answer 9

Spot on!  I'm sick of hearing that all parents who relinquish their kids for adoption would otherwise have abused their kids.  

Personally I think adoption has it's place - for kids who are in genuine need of homes.   It is not practiced that way in the USA.  It's a buyers market there.

Answer 10

I'd have to say I somewhat agree with the notion that the abuse rate would rise.  If you don't remember seeing any of my answers, I'm a birthmom who decided to relinquish after a nasty breakup with my at-the-time fiance.  It went worse than most.  I did not want to keep the baby for many reasons.  I do realize that none of the problems in the relationship were the baby's fault, but at the same time, I honestly feel that at the time, I would have resented her.  There probably would have been some form of neglect, due to my trying to disconnect from her father- at least until I got that situation all straightened out, which would have been during the most important age of her life, the first few years.  She would have reminded me of him, and what I had been through.  That's just unfair, of course.  And I do consider myself a caring person most of the time.  So for the people out there that aren't so caring, I'm sure it's not a long shot that they wouldn't have the common sense to know that they can't handle keeping their child.  Not to mention that in my own situation, I have also mentioned part of my deciding to relinquish rather than parent was that I know I would have been working at least one full time job and living on every type of government assistance available, just to make ends meet.  That alone is a form of neglect, in my opinion.  Why bother keeping a child just so that they can be shuffled from daycare to daycare while Mom works?  I firmly believe that more than one parent is needed to properly provide for children in the myriad of ways that are required, and I provided that for my baby through adoption.

Oh, and as for this part of your question:  "First off, the people who seek out adoption plans for their children are doing so because they care about their child and are led to believe they will not be able to provide what a child "deserves",", that's not the case for me at all.  I was in no way coerced or led to believe anything.  This is one myth readily spread on this site that is simply not true all of the time.  Some of the time, sure.  But not all.  I did not want to keep her, and wanted to give her to someone else- all on my own accord.  You could even say that I wanted to relinquish even in the face of coercion to parent.  It was not just that I didn't feel that I would not "be able" to provide.  It was also that I did not want to.  Many of the people on this forum have called me cold for saying this, but I really am telling it so that the truth is heard, and so that it's not beautified or made all fluffy in some way.  I think some people need to admit that some birthmoms feel this way to themselves.  I did and still do care about her, and that is why I relinquished- it's just the second part that just isn't true.  

Hope this helps~

*I just saw this in your previous answer:  "adoption is usually a permanent solution to a temporary problem" and I'm glad you said "usually"- this was not the case for me.  You could apply that here.   I did not have a temporary problem.  I do not regret my decision, and would still make the same decision today, seven years later, even after having our open adoption closed on me (I think).

Holy c**p- for those of you who think I'M cold, check out Keica!

**Happymomanna- your answer offered a lot of great comments, and I know you have experience working with families that I do not.  BUT, that said, I wanted to comment on this:  "I also believe that in most cases that a mother who believed there was support within her own family would reach out for that support--I think there are too many mother's who would rather place with strangers then the people they know--especially if they have been abused by the people they know...."  I disagree that that's the truth in most cases.  Like me, I know other birthmoms who just want to move on, and where there has been no attempt to keep the baby in the family.  And that's okay.  Let's not try to "cover up" by saying "at least the birthmom "tried" to keep the baby "somehow".  I can think of several family members who could and would have taken in my baby and cared for her quite well.  I never asked.  Sometimes, we just relinquish.  Period.

"just a stumbling block to education..."  Wow.  Again, I hope that this is just a slip up, one of your self-proclaimed knee jerk reactions.  It seems that a birthparent just can't win with you.  I did consider the fact that I planned to go to college when I was pregnant, and I knew that was highly unlikely being a single parent.  But never did I consider the baby "just a stumbling block to education".   Don't birthparents deserve a shot at a better life, too?

***Gaia Raain- I saw your add details about your recent realization- this is where many of the comments commending birthparents for deciding to relinquish comes from.  People know that it's not always easy to admit that you're not ready to be a parent.  Too many parents, in my opinion, do not relinquish because they are unwilling to admit this, and it ends up hurting the kids in the long run.  

I know a girl who is 19 and has a new little baby girl.  She is single and has learned little personal responsibility.   Her parents claim that they will not let her mooch of of them, but in all reality, they will do what they "have" to do to support her because they cannot let the baby fail to thrive.  They make plenty of money, as he is a successful local artist.  But in doing this, are they really helping?  In my opinion, at this time in her life, the 19 year old should have relinquished.  But to her, her baby now makes her special and gets her attention.  And she knows mommy and daddy will support her and take the baby when she drops her off (which is already quite often).  "This" is family preservation?  Don't the grandparents here deserve to live their own lives, instead of virtually becoming parents again at their age?  And who's to say that they aren't going to be influencing this new baby in the same ways, not teaching her responsibility, either?  What does this girl have to offer a precious child at this point in her life? Wouldn't it have been better for her to learn a few things about how the world works before bringing an innocent child into the mix?   That, to me, would have been responsible and admirable.

This is why relinquishing is not always about not having enough money, and why family preservation doesn't always sound like the best option.  Sometimes the kids really do just need to be raised somewhere else.  This is also the reason I hate to see all the negativity here- when girls/women come looking for help in what to do and are flooded with "Don't do it!  You're abandoning your baby, and he/she will have issues for-ever", it really does hurt me.  I would have hated to hear that as a prospective birthmom.  I personally find some peace in believing I picked a couple that was and remains more capable of caring for my child than I was.  I don't think people realize that these are real women, really facing a tough decision in their lives- and that sometimes, they really shouldn't parent at that time, and that it really is best for them to relinquish.  They need to be supported in whatever path they choose, and not be coerced either way.  

If in the end, it really is about the kids and not "the message" people are trying to get across (too often without listening) then people need to realize that being forced to parent is not any better than being forced to relinquish.

****My apologies to all for such a long answer.

Answer 11

If adoption were abolished I would think it is a natural inclination to replce it with somethig better.... yeah we support the tuffing of kids out on their buts..

People try not to think so simple minded please.

Like why is it all or nuthing in here. It seems like people do not have the ability to problem solve. Shuting down adoption and replacing it with something not so perverted is a good idea?